Council continues Wineville Marketplace hearing after residents press traffic, equestrian and notice concerns; developer agrees to $500,000 north‑side package

The Jurupa Valley City Council continued a heated public hearing April 2 on the Wineville Marketplace Village, a proposed 33‑acre mixed‑use development by Diversified Pacific at the southeast corner of Limonite Avenue and Wineville Avenue that would build 232 residential units and about 24,000 square feet of commercial space.

Staff described the entitlements requested: a general plan amendment, a change of zone to a planned unit development (PUD 2), a tentative tract map and a site‑development permit. The applicant’s materials show 57 single‑family homes, 102 townhomes and 73 cluster units, plus four commercial pads designed with equestrian‑oriented elements (a corral, hitching posts and troughs) and five open‑space areas intended for public use.

Many residents opposed the proposal at the hearing, citing traffic, safety, loss of equestrian character and perceived notice and transparency failures. “This is an equestrian community,” Lisa Lane, a Sky Country resident, told the council. “If Diversified wants to move forward with building homes that are not aligned with the equestrian overlay, the responsibility should be on them to ensure the surrounding community is properly supported.” Several residents asked the council to preserve the equestrian overlay by requiring early construction of trails, bridges and fencing.

Supporters said the site has been a vacant eyesore for decades and that the project would deliver housing, retail amenities and long‑deferred infrastructure improvements. “Turning it into a productive use will finally make something good out of a space that’s been wasted for decades,” said Taylor Pryor, a longtime resident who spoke in favor of the project.

Developer representatives emphasized five years of outreach and said they had modified the project based on feedback. Nolan Legio, Diversified Pacific’s vice president for forward planning, told the council the team has “spent over five years on this project” and incorporated community suggestions. The developer also warned that rejecting this proposal could open the site to a denser alternative under state density‑bonus laws, with fewer local amenities and less local control.

Negotiated concessions and unresolved issues

Staff and the developer presented a list of conditions and clarifications agreed during negotiations: replacement of certain fencing with three‑rail vinyl or an in‑lieu fee, a corral and trough within the commercial center, added trail and sidewalk work, stub sewer outs for some neighboring properties, and a gateway monument sign. The applicant agreed to several planning‑commission requests but declined to reduce the project’s total number of housing units.

During council deliberations council members concentrated on a short list of outstanding design and implementation questions: whether to require a full six‑lane Limonite rebuild or accept a four‑lane configuration with striped/hatched reserve lanes; whether the south side of Limonite should include a 3‑rail vinyl equestrian fence in addition to a north‑side fence; the schematic cross‑section of the trail (a meandering 10‑foot concrete trail with landscaping vs. a linear combination of concrete plus decomposed‑granite); who will maintain trails and parkway landscaping (developer/HOA vs. LLMD/CFD vs. city); and stronger, less‑open language in the development plan that would limit later changes in unit type or square footage.

A key concession emerged late in the evening: the developer agreed to increase its north‑side package from a previously offered $300,000 (or installation of the 3‑rail fence) to $500,000 total — $300,000 to cover the three‑rail fence replacement and an additional $200,000 earmarked for further right‑of‑way/landscaping improvements on Limonite’s north side. The developer said the $500,000 offer was a final concession intended to respond to neighbor concerns but indicated it would not make additional extensions beyond what had already been negotiated.

Council action: continuation for clarified conditions

Councilmembers said they appreciated the concessions but several said they were not comfortable approving final entitlements without clearer, tightened language in the development plan and a final diagram of the chosen Limonite lane/trail cross section. A motion to approve the project with the negotiated list of conditions was made but did not carry after several councilmembers said they wanted clearer final documents before taking a vote.

The council unanimously agreed to continue the public hearing to May 7, 2026 and directed staff to return with revised development‑plan language that narrows or strikes provisions permitting broad post‑approval changes in unit types or plan square footage, a clear drawing showing the preferred right‑of‑way and trail cross‑section (a working option discussed was a 28‑foot parkway that would give the council the meandering trail and room for equestrian fencing), final wording for the gateway monument requirement (to come back to council for approval rather than staff sign‑off), and a staff recommendation about whether the proposed trail/parkway maintenance should be included in the CFD/LLMD or assigned to city maintenance.

What’s next: the hearing is continued to May 7, 2026. If the council receives the revised development plan, right‑of‑way diagrams and tightened conditions at that meeting it will decide whether to approve the project’s entitlements or to require further changes.